Terrorism .....are we alert enough

[Daisy Buchanan]

I like a President who says this sort of thing:

Let no man say It cannot be done. It must be done-and we have undertaken to do it.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sorry to borrow your words for context, Pilgrim. Obviously I don't mean to say that a President should say that a Police State must be created. But I rather prefer a Presidential message of strength, courage and determination. Another that makes my heart swell, from the same man:

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.



I understand that one of the foiled bombers was a woman who planned to bring her baby aboard with its bottle full of explosives. Such madness can be met with no half-measures.

I don't want my President to say "Gee, we did the best we could. Sorry about your family."

I couldn't agree more. I really like those quotes. I don't want to imagine the amount of attacks that could take place if we had a president that constantly apologized and backed down after every attack. I know the terrorists thrive on the fear that they have created in us, but an apologetic state would just show even more weakness, and increase the amount and intensity of the attacks.

 

[geo]

To quote Ben Franklin; "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Slogans are great, but they don't mean a thing. Remember the citizens of Japanese origin locked up for the duration of WW2? That happened in a country which gave up a little liberty to gain a little security, and that country deserved and kept both. Today's problems are way more complex than any in Franklin's times would have imagined. The "Let's not give up the liberties" rhetoric worked when fighting the British Empire, but is not a way of approaching today's more complex problems.

 

[Feraud]

The "Let's not give up the liberties" rhetoric worked when fighting the British Empire, but is not a way of approaching today's more complex problems.

That is if you believe the old days were a "simpler time". I read History and see it as anything but simple!

 

[LaMedicine]

Slogans are great, but they don't mean a thing. Remember the citizens of Japanese origin locked up for the duration of WW2? That happened in a country which gave up a little liberty to gain a little security, and that country deserved and kept both.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that the Japanese Americans deserved to be locked up because they were of the then enemy origin? If that is so, have you ever read any of the memoirs written by the people who were locked up? What comes across is the bewilderment and sadness of these people being stranded in the middle of nowhere and having no freedom save live in that middle of nowhere and having their rights taken away, just because they were of a certain ethnicity. The Japanese Americans certainly didn't give up their liberty of their own volition. They had no idea why they needed to be isolated. They were one day suddenly ordered to pack up and move out and move on. They had to leave behind almost all of their hard earned belongings. The only way they could leave the place was join the military and fight for the US and prove themselves that they were Americans and worthy of their citizenship.

If there is a belief that it is fine to isolate the entire population of a certain group of people of whom the majority are peaceful and have no ill intent, just because the majority of those who are intent in doing harm to the country and its citizens are of the same origin, isn't that a rather outrageous interpretation of gving up a little liberty?

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not a nattering nabob of negativity.

I just happen to know that most of what we're doing to "combat terrorism", at least the stuff being discussed in the papers, is useless and strictly for show and the rest essentially and ineffectively duplicates existing methods that remain within the law.

Ok, so tell us what you would do that would work since you know what we are doing isn't working. It seems like nattering and negativism if no solution is coming of it. [huh] Full of sound a fury signifying nothing.
We will never really know how many attempts have been stopped by what we are doing now because they just don't come out and tell us every single time what they do works. It is actually a good idea since we don't want them to know what it is that we do and how it works.
Perhaps I should also say ala Daisy:
I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE UP ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES.

Regards,

J

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Perhaps I should also say ala Daisy:
I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE UP ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES.

Regards,

J

I don't believe I ever said that, and I'm sorry if you think that is what I said. I do agree completely with what you stated in your first paragraph.
I don't want my life so invaded by the government that I can't have any semblence of privacy. I do not want a police state. I do think that when I travel, the extra hour I need at the airport for heightened security does not bother me, that is just my own opinion, I do not think negatively of anyone who feels differently. I hate the thought of people listening into my phone calls, but if it happens, it's something I have to deal with. If I could think of some other creative way of counter-terrorism, then I would let it be known. I'm not saying anything controversial or harmful that could be used against me. It's something that might happen to any of us in order to live in a world that is plagued by terror. This state of the country was not created by you or me, but people who want us dead. There are huge inconveniences that are more than likely going to get worse given the current threats, I have to deal with them because the alternative is something I'm not ready for. No, I am not prepared to give up my civil liberties. I am more than willing to hear other options that could work, if anyone actually had any other ideas. For now, until those other options are thought of and in place, I have to deal with the current restrictions that are going to be placed on me. Right now, they aren't so bad, my life isn't hindered in any way. I do understand that this could get a lot worse, and I really don't want that to happen. If it does, my current thoughts are sure to drastically change. I'm just saying that right now it's something I can deal with if it means I'm even a little bit safer. When the restrictions on living get so bad that they become cumbersome to our lives, thats when we take a stand. For now I want a government that will take a stand for me and not emit weakness and fear that terrorists will thrive on. And I'll say it again, this is just my own opinion. It is not my intent to try and make anyone have these same thoughts. I enjoy hearing the opinions of others, as long as their intent isn't to make me change my mind, just see a different point of view that I can mull over and accept as a difference of oppinion. I also prefer people to base their arguments on facts and thoughts verses feelings. This can be a emotion provoking subject, but nothing gets solved when argument is based on feelings or emotions.

 

[jamespowers]

I don't believe I ever said that, and I'm sorry if you think that is what I said. I do agree completely with what you stated in your first paragraph.

I should have explained further. My reference was only to the all caps so everyone could see and understand.
Actually I also agree with the rest of what you said as well. I just don't want to give up all rights. Some priviledges and some semblance of privacy but not all my rights. It is just that some think that there is a camel's nose under the tent thing going on that I cannot see so the big words had to be used.

Regards,

J

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I should have explained further. My reference was only to the all caps so everyone could see and understand.
Actually I also agree with the rest of what you said as well. I just don't want to give up all rights. Some priviledges and some semblance of privacy but not all my rights. It is just that some think that there is a camel's nose under the tent thing going on that I cannot see so the big words had to be used.

Regards,

J

I guess I did mis-understand what you said, which I actually realized right after I posted and then re-read your words. Thanks for the explanation.
I do agree with what you say. As for the caps, we have to shout sometimes to get a point across. It's like listening to the media, who only tell one side of a story, or some people who listen to the news and only hear the negative. It's sad when we live in a world that focuses so much on the bad that we have to shout to get the good parts of a story or the positive across. It's frustrating (hate to use this word so much) how many people I come across that can tell me all the bad that has happened that they will blame on the administration, but are shocked if I tell them anything good done by the administration. They can be so negative that they often don't believe the good, even if it is backed up by fact. I often get the "that must be a fake report by the media". They are so anti-administration that they don't even believe the facts. They are bent on seeing this adminstration faol, that they will believe even the most spun reports that are anti-government, and refuse to think that a positive report could have any truth to it.

 

[geo]

Do you mean that the Japanese Americans deserved to be locked up because they were of the then enemy origin?

Of course not. What I mean to say is that nice words, such as those of Franklin, are quickly forgotten when extreme measures are needed, such as in times of war.

Although western countries were the defenders of freedom, they didn't hesitate emprisoning American or Canadian citizens of Japanese, German or Italian origin, some of which were born in the US or Canada. The British even deported to Australia a shipload full of European Jewish refugees. Liberty was sacrificed for security. My point is that the ideal of freedom is put aside when security is at stake, and the WW2 situation shows a precedent for this.

 

[carebear]

Ok, so tell us what you would do that would work since you know what we are doing isn't working. It seems like nattering and negativism if no solution is coming of it. [huh] Full of sound a fury signifying nothing.
We will never really know how many attempts have been stopped by what we are doing now because they just don't come out and tell us every single time what they do works. It is actually a good idea since we don't want them to know what it is that we do and how it works.
Perhaps I should also say ala Daisy:
I DO NOT THINK THAT WE SHOULD GIVE UP ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM MEASURES.

Regards,

J

I know that I can strap a Platypus Bag full of whatever liquid I so desire to my leg and I won't, statistically, be patted down by security. I know that if my compatriot and I both do so with a binary explosive compound and shower prior to going to the airport with said bags strapped to our legs we will effectively remove any explosive residue from our persons that the "sniffers" might have picked up. I know that if we buy round trip tickets, are citizens of Western countries with Western last names and check baggage (which we isolate from the bomb chemicals, which can be made in our homes from commonly available materials) for that trip we are statistically unlikely to have even our baggage undergo extra screening (which we can test just by flying once prior and looking on our issued boarding passes for the red pen mark). Then, in flight, we stand in line for the head and make the big kaboom at will.

Or I could just bribe a minimum-wage-earning ground crewman to leave a "package" on board the aircraft whenever I want. As the FAA tests have shown, that is a fairly easy thing to do as well.

You want to bring down a plane? It will never involve the "security" perimeter that takes so much time and causes so much hassle to innocent people. If you are going to catch an attempt you'll do it well prior to the screening or not at all.

The military rule says, "an uncovered obstacle is not an obstacle".

The current screening process for passengers is not an obstacle. They are missing the test guns, knives and bombs at the the same rate as before 9/11. That being the case, any flight I am on with the same pocket knife (for instance) I carried onboard prior to 9/11 is no more at risk than one now, with the possible slim chance I'll have an fighting chance against a terrorist who can get a ground crew to smuggle on a machete or a Bruce Campbell-style chainsaw.

Always remember, the official "Plan B" for any terrorist takeover of an aircraft now is for F-16's to shoot it down with all aboard government-approved sacrifices.

Why exactly am I being harrassed at the gate then? They can't stop a competant terrorist and if one gets through I'm either dead from a bomb or the F-16's put a missile in the engines.

Sniffer's? Good tech, as are non-invasive dog sweeps. I don't even mind the x-ray machines in case we get lucky and the 3 Stooges are sicced on us. What I hate is the insulting paternalism that the government puts out about obvious security measures contributing one whit to safety.

It's a pure "we're DOING SOMETHING" effort designed to lull the ignorant. The side effect is that such measures are accepted by the ignorant as justifications to expand government power and consequently erode our rights, to NO effect.

Standard law enforcement powers and techniques, used properly by Western nations, have accounted for all the "saves" we know about and all such saves so far that we know about or have been leaked have been trumpeted as justifications for the government's efforts.

No conclusive evidence has been provided that the "Patriot Act" (for instance) is particularly useful or necessary, to my knowledge.

 

[Twitch]

Terrorist activities as any criminal activities can't be thwarted 100% of the time. While it sounds quite fatalistic we must realize that we can only cover so many bases in a reasonable effort to keep ahead of curve. After that what happens, happens.

It's similar to auto anti-theft devices that have grown in complexity over the years yet have not stopped car theft. And as with sophisticated auto systems the consumer pays for them in the price of the car. The same goes with criminal and terrorist activity. We pay for it literally in taxation and in another sense sociologically since all our cultures and societies are affected now.

As car thieves have continually found ways to defeat anti-theft systems terrorist will find ways to exploit the liberties in a free society. The alternative that would preclude more illegal activities would be a draconian nation that would be akin to a police state.

 

[Viola]

Of course not. What I mean to say is that nice words, such as those of Franklin, are quickly forgotten when extreme measures are needed, such as in times of war.

Although western countries were the defenders of freedom, they didn't hesitate emprisoning American or Canadian citizens of Japanese, German or Italian origin, some of which were born in the US or Canada. The British even deported to Australia a shipload full of European Jewish refugees. Liberty was sacrificed for security. My point is that the ideal of freedom is put aside when security is at stake, and the WW2 situation shows a precedent for this.

That doesn't make it moral or the best choice, though at least in that example the British weren't deporting Jews who made it to Palestine back to Europe to be killed.:rage:

 

[jamespowers]

I know that I can strap a Platypus Bag full of whatever liquid I so desire to my leg and I won't, statistically, be patted down by security. I know that if my compatriot and I both do so with a binary explosive compound and shower prior to going to the airport with said bags strapped to our legs we will effectively remove any explosive residue from our persons that the "sniffers" might have picked up. I know that if we buy round trip tickets, are citizens of Western countries with Western last names and check baggage (which we isolate from the bomb chemicals, which can be made in our homes from commonly available materials) for that trip we are statistically unlikely to have even our baggage undergo extra screening (which we can test just by flying once prior and looking on our issued boarding passes for the red pen mark). Then, in flight, we stand in line for the head and make the big kaboom at will.

Or I could just bribe a minimum-wage-earning ground crewman to leave a "package" on board the aircraft whenever I want. As the FAA tests have shown, that is a fairly easy thing to do as well.

You want to bring down a plane? It will never involve the "security" perimeter that takes so much time and causes so much hassle to innocent people. If you are going to catch an attempt you'll do it well prior to the screening or not at all.

The military rule says, "an uncovered obstacle is not an obstacle".

The current screening process for passengers is not an obstacle. They are missing the test guns, knives and bombs at the the same rate as before 9/11. That being the case, any flight I am on with the same pocket knife (for instance) I carried onboard prior to 9/11 is no more at risk than one now, with the possible slim chance I'll have an fighting chance against a terrorist who can get a ground crew to smuggle on a machete or a Bruce Campbell-style chainsaw.

Always remember, the official "Plan B" for any terrorist takeover of an aircraft now is for F-16's to shoot it down with all aboard government-approved sacrifices.

Why exactly am I being harrassed at the gate then? They can't stop a competant terrorist and if one gets through I'm either dead from a bomb or the F-16's put a missile in the engines.

Sniffer's? Good tech, as are non-invasive dog sweeps. I don't even mind the x-ray machines in case we get lucky and the 3 Stooges are sicced on us. What I hate is the insulting paternalism that the government puts out about obvious security measures contributing one whit to safety.

It's a pure "we're DOING SOMETHING" effort designed to lull the ignorant. The side effect is that such measures are accepted by the ignorant as justifications to expand government power and consequently erode our rights, to NO effect.

Standard law enforcement powers and techniques, used properly by Western nations, have accounted for all the "saves" we know about and all such saves so far that we know about or have been leaked have been trumpeted as justifications for the government's efforts.

No conclusive evidence has been provided that the "Patriot Act" (for instance) is particularly useful or necessary, to my knowledge.

I am not going to see you on the evening news anytime soon are I?

Regards,

J

 

[carebear]

Nah, I'm on the side of the angels.

My point (I'm assuming I had one) was to point out what a bit of study will reveal to anyone who cares to look deeper than official government pronouncements. We really CAN'T stop competent terrorists with the line-inducing, publically known counter-measures that cause all the annoyance. When they put them in place with all the publicity and explain the concept of how they work (how they'll "make us SAFE") they immediately make them reasonably avoidable or defeatable by intelligent, motivated people. Terrorism isn't really rocket science, it just takes the ability to read and a certain creativity in application.

Richard Reid, obviously not a master criminal, acted alone, gamed a weakness in the screening system at the time and was almost successful. His plot was stopped only by his own incompetence at creating a detonator and an alert passenger's response.

Also, his bomb was too small to realistically bring down the plane, regardless of the overhyping by the govt. and media (for whom reporting now seems to mean "reprint verbatim the press release from the side with which you agree").

The public stuff is primarily designed to appeal to the emotions of those who want "something to be done" and to "feel safer" even when they aren't. It's almost cognitive dissonance at work. It just gets annoying and insulting to hear some talking head tell me I just need to give a a BIT more freedom and, yes, convenience, and Big Daddy government will keep me all safe and secure.

They are, in fact, doing things that will help keep us more secure than we were, but warrantless wire taps and x-raying shoes aren't those things.

Check out this article on the liquid explosive that was apparently being used and the difficulties therein. http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

 

[Roger]

Being an American of Portuguese-Madeiran birth and a Roman Catholic, I and most Madeirans, are olive complextive with dark features; brown or black hair and eyes. When we tan, we look Middle Eastern, since golly gee, both are racially caucasian. I don't mind being a little inconvenienced at the airport, because I or my sons may fit the profile of a Moslem terrorist. We have nothing to hide. So it makes sense right now to focus on Middle Eastern looking men between 16 and 40 years of age rather than take the misguided notion that everyone is a potential terrorist and we must check the undergarments of 80 year old Chinese women in wheelchairs, 45 year old overweight, balding blonde men. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.